Rule Blocking: Understanding how to Break Apart and Analyze Legal Rules
Rule blocking is easy and super useful.
Most legal rules contain more than one part or element, but that is not always obvious. In fact, sometimes two or three elements will masquerade as a single definition. To make sure you get all of the pieces that are required for a good analysis, learn to rule block.
Rule blocking is my name for taking a legal rule and dividing into all of the functional, logical parts. The goal is to do this thoroughly, but without creating “extra” blocks that are illogical and not helpful because they really belong with another part of the rule.
So how do you rule block?
Examine the sentence structure for clues.
Sometimes the court makes this obvious, by dividing it into elements. In other words, the structure of the sentence gives you the rule blocks. If you’re lucky, the parts might even be numbered, thereby making the division of elements explicit. Here’s an example:
To establish intentional trespass, a plaintiff must show (1) invasion of property affecting an interest in exclusive possession, (2) an intentional act, (3) reasonable foreseeability the act would disturb the plaintiff's possessory interest, and (4) actual and substantial damages.
Bradley v. Am. Smelting & Ref. Co., 104 Wn.2d 677, 692-93, 709 P.2d 782 (1985).
Other times, the court puts the elements in a list, separated by commas or semi-colons, and a conjunction (and/or), but doesn’t number them. In these instances, the structure of the sentence still gives you the rule blocks, it is just not quite as clear as a numbered list (but pretty close). Here’s an example:
To determine whether two causes of action are the same, the primary tests are the identity of the investigative facts creating the right of action in each case, the identity of the evidence necessary to sustain each action, and the accrual of the alleged rights of action at the same time. If the same evidence would support both actions, then the second cause of action is barred.
High Spirits v. City of Dayton Nuisance Appeals Bd., C.A. CASE No. 16960, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 4891, at *1 (Ct. App. Oct. 16, 1998).
And another example:
“‘The kinds of damages recoverable include: diminished rental value; reasonable costs of replacement or repair; restoration of the property to its pre-nuisance condition; and other added damages for incidental losses.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Rudd v. Electrolux Corp., 982 F. Supp. 355, 372 (M.D.N.C. 1997) (citing Phillips, 58 S.E.2d at 348)).
In re NC Swine Farm Nuisance Litig., No. 5:15-CV-00013-BR, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185089, at *35 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2017).
2. Ask what parts are distinct things requiring proof.
Sometimes, it’s much less clear. The sentence structure does not help you to see the blocks. In fact, the structure may be misleading by suggesting a single definition. In such a case, the a definition of the cause of action may be hiding multiple rule blocks.
Here is an example of such a definition-style explanation of a cause of action:
Waste is defined to be any substantial injury done to the inheritance by one having a limited estate during the continuance of his estate.
Dodds v. Sixteenth Section Dev. Corp., 232 Miss. 524, 527, 99 So. 2d 897, 898 (1958).
Within that so-called definition, though, there is an entire list of required pieces. The court just hasn’t made it explicitly a list. If you try to apply these rules as a single whole (i.e. treat it like one element), then the application will quickly become a muddle. The best way to approach these is rule-blocking: to break the rule into manageable chunks that are individually coherent.
Here is what it looks like if you break it into pieces (i.e. make rule blocks):
Waste is defined to be (1) any substantial injury done to the inheritance, (2) by one having a limited estate, (3) during the continuance of his estate.
Dodds v. Sixteenth Section Dev. Corp., 232 Miss. 524, 527, 99 So. 2d 897, 898 (1958).
If you are having trouble telling which things require distinct proof, think about how the pieces might interact with the traditional question words (who, what, where, when, why, how). Concepts that speak to different questions will require different proof.
3. Check for logically or practically inseparable units.
Basically, you can take the whole idea of breaking it down a step too far and create incoherent pieces. In our waste example, we could try to separate “substantial injury” from “to the inheritance,” (i.e. the property). But in this context is it really possible to prove the injury without saying that it is injury to the property? No. That just doesn’t make sense. Something or someone has to be injured. In this case, it’s realty, so we are looking for an injury to the property. That means “substantial injury to the inheritance” is one thing, one rule block.
How to Use Your Rule Blocks
Once you have the rule-blocks you can treat them just like a list of elements. Use them one at a time in the application, offering proof of each individual block. You can follow what I call a Nested-IRAC approach. Here’s a download with examples of the Nested-IRAC approach, which will help you easily structure applications.
And here’s a handout, color-coded version of this post.
Practice opportunity:
Try this one yourself:
Waste may be defined to be any act or omission of duty by a tenant of land which does a lasting injury to the freehold, tends to the permanent loss of the owner of the fee, or to destroy or lessen the value of the inheritance, or to destroy the identity of the property, or impair the evidence of title.
Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co., 104 Wis. 7, 9, 79 N.W. 738, 739 (1899).
(Scroll for the answer.)
Here’s how it should be divided:
Waste may be defined to be (1) any act or omission of duty (2) by a tenant of land which (3) does a lasting injury to the freehold, (4) tends to the permanent loss of the owner of the fee, or (5) to destroy or lessen the value of the inheritance, or (6) to destroy the identity of the property, or impair the evidence of title.
Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co., 104 Wis. 7, 9, 79 N.W. 738, 739 (1899).